First of all...history-wise, I can run circles around you. And looks finance-wise, you're not far ahead, although "specializing" in the area...

WHat Saddam had a long time ago has NOTHING to do with the recent history. We, Bush in particular, claimed through Powell that he had factories of that crap, that he had mobile factories and who knows what else... Again, he used the scare tactics to prove a lie...

Saddam has NEVER, absolutely neved done anything wrong to us. Yes, he hated us, and wished all the bad things to us, but so does 80% of the world today...

He did bad things to his own people and should have been done that way. So did most of the dictators...

Now, alesson in Physics for you -- you can destroy the WMD, but the traces of it (especially nuclear) will remain there for a looooonnnng time. Where is it??? We found none of them (beside 400 empty rusted shells) and absolutely no proof of them existing.

Mr. Blix was appointed from the UN and he said there was nothing there, but Mr. Bush was again smarter... Because of that, our country is bancrupt (and will be in a much worse situation in the future), we lost world respect, we lost 5500 soldiers, we distroyed a sovereign country, killed many innocent, NK developed freely their WMD in front of our face, Iran is toying with us...

Do you really thing we would attack someone if we really knoew they had the WMD??? (hint - NK)... You need to grow up before discussing these topics...

Now, as for the support of democrats and some other nations:
- First of all, the USA was in a very sensitive state then after the 911. Bush used that for his own gains instead getting the whole world to be with us and support us, he acted like a cowboy -- "Either you're with me or my enemy". Speaches on the WMD every day... Propaganda. Of course that most that had political aspirations would have stick by him. Every normal person would have known and questioned it since no real picture ever existed of the sites with all the technology we have...

Wait a min here... Clinton bombed a few of the factories during the scandal... Does that mean Clinton wasnt telling the truth? Or can we all agree that Clintons spending cuts on the CIA and NSA left to bad security and intelligence..

And no one said anything about nuclear WMD, we were talking about chemical and biological WMD,s which we found weapons such as missiles and artillery shells designed to deliver them, so we found the gun but we didnt find the bullets.... Possibly because Clinton bombed the bullets? Who knows..

w
I have a giant problem with that statement. Today's answer is: Because it doesn't have to. I know, it's hard to wrap your brain around the concept of a sovereign nation, that can govern itself without outside help - within it's borders, given the definition. UN is both capable, and within right to enforce international laws due to it's peacekeeping contingent. However, they as a reasonable international governing body, would also have to apply the same rules to other countries that break those laws. The law, or well, the agreement referred to, is the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which limits states with nuclear arsenal to 5: Russia, China, United States, United Kingdom, and France. Notice how Israel, Pakistan, and India, three major world powers have openly tested nuclear weapons, currently possess them, yet UN hasn't enforced the treaty.

Queue the "Because UN is a neutered organization" cries.

Guess what, US hasn't attacked those countries openly. With Iraq, it actually defied a UN decision, and used military action against a sovereign state. I promise you, if Russia or China had done this, US officials would shit a brick over it, and condemn it as undemocratic.

I don't defend Saddam, he is a douche, and deserved to be hanged. I do defend the right of a country to not be invaded randomly, under whatever pretenses, without repercussions to the invader from the international community. This guns blazing attitude is what's undermining the UN, which then gets blamed for being incapable.

We should all know where this comes from.

"provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Basically as a nation in the beginning we pledged to help give freedom and liberty to all. (even in our pledge). Our founding fathers believed firmly that everyone should be free and that we should help out and no one should be deprived of their freedom.

What does this have to do with Iraq. Well you stated no one has the right to invade right? Well actually according to several places in various US documents and pledges it is not only our right to invade but it is our duty to so we can promote liberty and justice for all.

After all I am sure you can find several Iraqi defectors that will tell you what is was like to live under Sadam.. How do you think the folks in North Korea are doing?? Not very well, they dont even have enough food or even the capacity to provide health care, yet 1 tyrant rules the country and has everything.

Should we let millions suffer around the world? Not only do we have people suffering under tyrants we also have some 20 million people still in slavery... But I guess the USA should stay out of everything and just prosper over here, because what happens on the other side of the world what we dont see or hear or read about doesnt matter.. It doenst matter that millions go to bed hungry each night in North Korea and live in fear about being taken out and killed the next day for saying something wrong.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

And above is a quote for the guy here that doesnt think our country was founded on god or that we have a belief in god.. Our entire country was founded on the belief that a god would protect us during our fight for are unalienable rights.

Wait a min here... Clinton bombed a few of the factories during the scandal... Does that mean Clinton wasnt telling the truth? Or can we all agree that Clintons spending cuts on the CIA and NSA left to bad security and intelligence..

And no one said anything about nuclear WMD, we were talking about chemical and biological WMD,s which we found weapons such as missiles and artillery shells designed to deliver them, so we found the gun but we didnt find the bullets.... Possibly because Clinton bombed the bullets? Who knows..

WHat the hell this have to do with Clinton.

Yes, Clinton lied more than once and bombed many sovereign countries and yes, I do believe he should be in Hague, too...

However, to tell me that he )possibly) destroyed ALL of Saddam's chem and bio weapons is just plain ridiculous and again -- lack of the knowledge of basic Physics...
That stuff does not just go away, it is EASILY detectable and UN inspectors would have absolutely no problem detecting traces of it. They did not and they reported it to the UN. Bush did not believe it and went against the UN and SC and destroyed the country...

As for the shells we found (400 of them to be particular) -- it was very obvious those were old, rusty ones, as we all know well Saddam did have and used it in the northern Iraq...

But again, that is absolutely no reason to do what we did...

So far, we're the ONLY country in the world that used the WMD against other nations, we're the only nation that is responsible for deaths of millions trying to spread our democracies around the world (Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq...), we're the only country that has military presence in other sovereign countries all over the world... and we're asking WHY others dislike ous political systems (that unfortunately translate into an ordinary American)...

And unlike a lot of you folks, I have been to the middle east and have sat down with several muslims and have been to a ton of mosques to learn about their ways.

That isnt the wisest option. Please take this as advice - dont just go to places to sit down with Muslims and talk and watch their actions. The reason is that while they might call themselves "Muslim" it doesnt mean they are showing the true teachings of Islam. I'll explain more later.

It's the same in every religion though. Prophet Jesus (AS) didnt smoke, gamble, drink, have relationships out of marriage, eat pork etc. yet many Christians engage in this. That doesnt necessarily mean they are showing what Christianity is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewAZ

I traveled in a group with women and a lot of places they were not allowed and we have to keep them in the center of the group when we walked since muslim boys would try and push them over for not being in proper full cover.

You just pointed out an example of Muslims sinning. They are not allowed to treat women like that at all. Islam doesnt even allow you to force a women to cover herself, there is no compulsion in religion. You must explain it and make people feel in their hearts to embrace it. All you have pointed out is that even Muslims can sin, you havent shown Islam to be a disrespectful religion.

In Islam yes we believe that men and women shouldnt mix freely with eachother. We try to be more controlled in our approach. We both know that the free mix of men and women will just lead to sex, relationships, rape - anything to be frank. Just because Islam thinks DIFFERENTLY how does that make it unacceptable?

You say there are a lot of places women cant go? It's not about women not being able to go somewhere, it's just that they shouldnt mix with men. The SAME rule applies to men. Forget men not being allowed to wander among women, did you know we dont look at women and if there is an attractive women we MUST lower our eyes? So it works BOTH ways for men and women.

That isnt the wisest option. Please take this as advice - dont just go to places to sit down with Muslims and talk and watch their actions. The reason is that while they might call themselves "Muslim" it doesnt mean they are showing the true teachings of Islam. I'll explain more later.

It's the same in every religion though. Prophet Jesus (AS) didnt smoke, gamble, drink, have relationships out of marriage, eat pork etc. yet many Christians engage in this. That doesnt necessarily mean they are showing what Christianity is.

You just pointed out an example of Muslims sinning. They are not allowed to treat women like that at all. Islam doesnt even allow you to force a women to cover herself, there is no compulsion in religion. You must explain it and make people feel in their hearts to embrace it. All you have pointed out is that even Muslims can sin, you havent shown Islam to be a disrespectful religion.

In Islam yes we believe that men and women shouldnt mix freely with eachother. We try to be more controlled in our approach. We both know that the free mix of men and women will just lead to sex, relationships, rape - anything to be frank. Just because Islam thinks DIFFERENTLY how does that make it unacceptable?

You say there are a lot of places women cant go? It's not about women not being able to go somewhere, it's just that they shouldnt mix with men. The SAME rule applies to men. Forget men not being allowed to wander among women, did you know we dont look at women and if there is an attractive women we MUST lower our eyes? So it works BOTH ways for men and women.

Some people cannot understand that the media propaganda has nothing to do with the reality...
Then they think they know it all and understand it all...

Some people cannot understand that the media propaganda has nothing to do with the reality...
Then they think they know it all and understand it all...

I agree. Even media is controlled. In Britain we have two main news channels: BBC and Sky-news. I watched an interview between a reporter and a politician (George Galloway) in which the reporter said because the politician was against the Iraq war that he must support Saddam. What a ludicrous thing to say.

There are fresh protests against the Iraq war all over Britian again. Yesterday I watched a similar report on Sky-news in which another reporter made the same stupid statement to an anti-war protester!

You dont have to defend the muslims. As i can se here in DK these days. half of the muslims agree on the attack - the rest are upset. There are no red line. You can no say that muslims are so and so - and thats a fact.
If you look arround the world and se whats happend right now and before that. You will se both good and evil things done in the name of Allah.
The people are beeing used in the name of religion - just like we did in the past.
I am glad i have a few muslims freinds to who are not happy about things over here right now. Most of the troublemakers are 14 - 20 years old. Feeling overseen. Feeling they have no future. Danish politik is becomming more and more right and as a part of the growing economic situation the gab between poor and rich are bigger. The big loosers here are def the muslims who are 2. gen.
The situation has nothing to do with the drawings. They came sort of after this startet. Its a matter of - CAN YOU HEAR ME - I WILL BE A PART OF YOU.
But .. it might turn different now.

I agree that the cartoon images didnt spark this violence, that probably just added to it. Please do think I am defending Muslims, I am rather defending Islam. People think you can tie Islam into the people that "follow" it. It doesnt work that way. The same applies to Christians, Hindus, etc.

Islam is there, if people want to call themselves Muslims and do evil the fault shouldnt lie at the door of Islam.

I agree that the cartoon images didnt spark this violence, that probably just added to it. Please do think I am defending Muslims, I am rather defending Islam. People think you can tie Islam into the people that "follow" it. It doesnt work that way. The same applies to Christians, Hindus, etc.

Islam is there, if people want to call themselves Muslims and do evil the fault shouldnt lie at the door of Islam.

Well it seems to cause a lot of issues and hate for others.... I dont see any Christians or especially Hindus or Buddhist committing acts in the name of their religion on such a wide spread scale as Islam.

But your right one of the issues is not the religion but the eduction of the folks in that area of the world. Most cant read and write, so what ends up happening is one radical leader preaches the "word" of Islam to his (women are not allowed to pray next to men or visible to men) followers and adds his own agenda which leads to many radicals.

Well it seems to cause a lot of issues and hate for others.... I dont see any Christians or especially Hindus or Buddhist committing acts in the name of their religion on such a wide spread scale as Islam.

That doesnt prove anything. My point of Islam being twisted to suit these terrorists is still valid. Islam is there, if they dont follow it Islam cant be blamed

Quote:

But your right one of the issues is not the religion but the eduction of the folks in that area of the world. Most cant read and write, so what ends up happening is one radical leader preaches the "word" of Islam to his (women are not allowed to pray next to men or visible to men) followers and adds his own agenda which leads to many radicals.

I agree. But we also have open dialogues in these countries over in the east. We speak in English and even their own languages to them.

You did raise another point about men and women being seperate in prayer. Why did you say "WOMEN ARE NOT ALLOWED..." when you could have said "MEN AND NOT ALLOWED TO PRAY NEXT TO WOMEN"?. I think you have chosen to put emphasis on what women cant do instead of look at the truth. Men and women might not be allowed to pray with eachother, but this obligation is to men AND women, not just women.

Bro I have already outlined why we do this. As I mentioned, the free mix of men and women can lead to sex (teenage pregnancies is worth noting), relationships, marriage, rape or anything. We Muslims believe not to let men and women mix freely but instead keep them apart unless they want to unite in marriage where husbands and wives will have rights and responsibilities.

We might think differently but why does that mean we are so cruel to women? These obligation are on men and women! men and women have to make this work, it's not just a case of "women cant do this or that". Why dont you point out the fact that "men must lower their gaze"? This is an obligation of men in Islam. We believe we shouldnt look at women's beauty.What's so wrong with that?

There are countries like my own where you can pick up pornography in newspapers and magazines. We believe women should be provided for by men, either in marriage or by fathers, brother etc. and should be respected. Their beauty shouldnt be so openly displayed for any guy to point out or stare at.

I'm not going to go into too much detail because I'm not trying to make you say "Islam is the best way of life" or anything. I say it is, but at the moment I would like people just to see it as a different way of life instead of a way of life that puts so many rules on women. That argument falls away very easily.

Well - not only flags. Denmark is still burning - not at 7. day.
They could only arrest about 30 of them until now.
The sad thing is that most of them are still going to school and their daytime job and has nothing to do with it.
But people are beginning to look at them to and think - could it be him to tonight... Burning my house, car or school.
So a few thousend are making it realy hard for the rest of them.
I has to stop now or people will take action them self.

Your right. They run from their country and comes op here and demand we do what they told us to. We cant do that. Its our country. If they are serius they schould have gone to another country with their own religion. We cant change our ways course we took in some in need and gave them a place to live.